IMHO if you want to predict pardons, look around for the criminals who would in any normal circumstance be the last to receive them. They'll be the ones.
IMHO if you want to predict pardons, look around for the criminals who would in any normal circumstance be the last to receive them. They'll be the ones.
Terry Nichols is an option and has a certain appeal to some of the "very fine people" who support Trump. Unfortunately he was also sentenced to life without the possibility of parole by a state court, which means he'd still be in prison if his federal conviction is vacated.
Latest indications are Trump is not interested in pardoning Weinstein since he supported Clinton and vowed to do everything he could to stop Trump. Not going to happen.
So if Weinstein had supported Don trump, trump would have pardoned him?
That Blagojevich bloke is one of the most corrupt and deluded criminals I have ever heard about. I just don't believe that many politicians are doing what he did left, right and centre. Apart from anything else, what happened to him was necessary to protect the integrity of the system, just as the prosecution of Felicity Hempel was necessary despite the prevalence, apparently, of conduct like hers.
Yes, that needs to change. But a) I don't think arresting politicians, however rightly, is going to do that--the problems are too embedded; b) arresting ALL politicians with unclean hands (to whatever extent) would pretty much shut down the gov't, and replacing them would just wind up as "same song, different verse"; c) things still need to be done in the meantime; and d) even with all the flaws, mistakes, and corruption, gov't still manages to get some good things done.
I take the opposite view. Rather than saying that the work of government is too important to enforce any standards of behavior, I'd argue that the work of government is so important that anti-corruption standards are critical. Deliberately turning a blind eye to corruption as you suggest just invites further corruption, leading to less of the "good things" getting done.
Again, neither said nor meant. Not turning a blind eye to anything. I'm saying it's a serious and chronic illness; there's no current treatment that makes much difference; and the gov't still needs to function at least well enough to pay the bills, help people out, and manage at least a semblance of law and order.
Barring a "Damascus Road experience" (adjusted for personal beliefs) for everyone at every level of gov't in the country; for all the people contributing money, power, and connections; and for everyone aspiring to get involved...
AND barring miraculous/magical power to cause a lasting cure...
we're stuck with the situation we've got for a long, long time.
Yes, anti-corruption standards are important. Absolutely. But enforcing them rarely seems to do much good. We've got a Hydra situation (Britannica). And it's much worse than the original.
Maybe mere mortals, working together, can do the job this time. But it will take coordinated effort over generations (most likely).
Unless you've got a quick fix that will work? An anti-corruption vaccine that can build up enough herd immunity that most people just aren't interested anymore?
(Not being flip. Just somewhat tired and frustrated.)
Meanwhile, we *can* try to manage the chronic illness.
It's one thing to have a corrupt king.
It's a second thing that the king can successfully corrupt legislstive assemblies.
It's a third thing for a king to corrupt the administration of justice and courts.
At some point the king needs to be put off his throne when the corruption is just too much. Someone usually dies to make that happen. Or more die to prevent it because they are owned by their part of the corruption.
b) the legislative assemblies were already corrupt, to various degrees, ISTM;
c) the courts and administration of justice were already corrupt, to various degrees, ISTM.
Actually, many American Shipmates (myself, incl.) and other Americans want to avoid the solution scenario you mentioned--hence pushing and praying for T to be legal and non-violently removed from office.
So, presuming such a situation could ever happen in our neighbor to the north, what would *you* do, please?
Is America really that broken? Was it as broken as you say under the Obama Administration? We have corruption scandals here to varying degrees, but that doesn't destroy my faith in the basic integrity of most politicians. Power is corrupting, yes, and people are corrupted to varying degrees.
One Govt Minister rang up the head of Hello World travel and booked a private holiday. He says he intended to pay for it, but he forgot about it, and the CEO "forgot" to bill him. When it became public, he paid for the travel straight away and said sorry. I thought he should have resigned his ministry, and spent some time on the back bench before being promoted again. He's a competent politician. He should be in Cabinet if we MUST have a conservative Govt.
I could go through half a dozen scandals, ranging from this low level stuff, to using Govt money for political advantage, to actual ridgie didge bribery of local Govt officials to get favorable planning decisions or contracts. People have gone to jail for that stuff at a local Govt and State level. There was even a Federal Minister for Immigration about 20 years ago who was jailed for using his position to obtain sexual favors from an applicant for a visa (can't remember the specifics).
So yes, it goes on, because that's us. And because that's us, it has to be policed hard and penalised when the opportunity comes to penalize it. Because the opportunity to catch corrupt pollies with their hand in the proverbial till and have enough evidence to make it stick is very rare. So when it happens, you have to make an example.
So, in summary:
1. Evaluate the seriousness of the behavior. What level of corruption is it? Is a political remedy, such as the one I outlined above in the Hello World scandal, sufficient? Can you get a political remedy? Will the politician who has committed the corrupt act be protected by his or her allies?
2. Because it is so difficult and so rare to be able to catch a politician in an act of serious corruption and for their allies to be unable to protect them, you must crucify them. They must suffer a very serious penalty for what they did. Deterrence is the aim here.
Corruption is Democracy's cancer. Its secondaries are disillusionment with the system and a loss of faith in Democracy by the general public. Democracy's death from this cancer is authoritarianism.
Judge challenges Attorney General Barr's credibility over handling of Mueller report, will review material still hidden from public. In a remarkable statement, U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton expressed "grave concerns" about the Justice Department's objectivity in redacting special counsel Robert S. Mueller III's report on Russia's interference in the 2016 presidential election. The judge specifically criticized Attorney General William P. Barr for making "misleading public statements" before Mueller's report was released.
And if Biden wins the election, you can bet the Congressional Republicans
If Biden wins the election then you'll get a greater Trump in 4 years time; the entire reason we are where we are is because of successive neoliberal administrations, with centrists triangulating by pushing the racism button.
I'm not sure about this. I wonder what others think. I'm going to copy this message over to the Trump Presidency Discussion Thread as I think a detailed discussion is out of place here.
Trump's emergence is in part about the effects of the 2008 financial crisis and the austerity response, but I'm not sure how much austerity actually happened in a United States where the social safety net has always been fragile, if there at all. As I understand things, Obama pumped money into the economy, first to save huge businesses going under and then to stimulate growth. It worked, in that it avoided a worse financial crisis and began a substantial recovery that has lasted right up to now. BUT, it laid Democrats open to the charge that they were feathering the nests of the very people who were to blame for the crisis and not helping ordinary people enough. Trump exploited that sentiment in 2016, and it got him over the line.
But that's not the only thing Trump exploited. He exploited the never-very-far-from-the-surface racism at the heart of the American experience (not exclusively by any stretch I hasten to add). He ran with that fast and hard. It started out with his leadership of the Birther movement, continued with his hateful pillorying of immigrants, especially "Mexicans", and is still going with his White Supremacist friendly administration (hello Steven Miller) and the institutional ratfucking practiced in an America which even yesterday couldn't get everyone to the polls who wanted to vote. I'm thinking now of people who had to line up PAST MIDNIGHT to vote. I am not sure that I could do that, and I am a fanatic.
I'm really not sure what Chris means when he says:
with centrists triangulating by pushing the racism button
As far as I can tell, Democrats who engage in racism, as with sexism and homophobia, are railed upon by their own side. Think of the blackface scandals last year. Racism is unacceptable in the Democratic Party. You might not lose your job. Governor Northam managed to hang on. But you will be wounded. The split in the Democratic Party, as far as I can tell, is over economics and the details of how to construct a social safety net which measures up to world standards. And really, its a dispute about electability more than it is a dispute about policy. Republicans are the ones exploiting American racism, not Democrats.
If Biden is the candidate, and if he wins and has control of congress (big ifs, I know), you will see him tackle health care in America by framing it as undoing Trump's damage to the ACA and building on the achievements of the Obama Administration. If he can do it, and get it right, America will be an immesurably better place for middle and working class people everywhere. Like in Australia, where Medicare began in the mid-1970's and was bedded down in 1984, Health care will become a huge plus for the Democrats. Americans will love it, like we do. It won't entrench the Democrats as the party of Govt, just like it didn't for the ALP here, but it will become a shibboleth. Our conservatives know that if they touch our health coverage, they will lose. So while they tinker undercover, their tinkering is limited.
So that's the future as I see it under a Biden administration that can tackle healthcare. I see it as a good working basis to go for almost two decades of Democratic governance in Washington.
This is similar to our current government and our NHS. They dare not make massive changes. There is not only the practical value of the system but also the emotional value. Knowing you will not be faced with a big bill if you fall ill or are in an accident. We are also sentimental about it. It is our NHS touch it at your peril. Boris and co are looking at making changes under the bonnet (hub for those in the US). They are treading on unsafe ground.
Remember Donald was taken aback with how we value it
As far as I can tell, Democrats who engage in racism, as with sexism and homophobia, are railed upon by their own side. Think of the blackface scandals last year. Racism is unacceptable in the Democratic Party.
Yes, I think it's safe to say that, at this point in history(but possibly not as recently as twenty years ago), almost anyone harbouring dixiecrat views on race(including the kind of statements often prefaced with "I'm not racist, but...") has gone over to the Republicans. With a similar polarization on other social issues(maybe abortion being an exception, but still, no Democratic presidential contender is gonna be anti-choice anymore).
I agree the main intra-party cleavage among Democrats is over economics. Even centrists who complain about "Bernie Bros" don't really think that Sanders is advocating anti-feminist policies, just that his followers are beholden to a certain macho style.
Trump's emergence is in part about the effects of the 2008 financial crisis and the austerity response, but I'm not sure how much austerity actually happened in a United States where the social safety net has always been fragile, if there at all. As I understand things, Obama pumped money into the economy, first to save huge businesses going under and then to stimulate growth. It worked, in that it avoided a worse financial crisis and began a substantial recovery that has lasted right up to now. BUT, it laid Democrats open to the charge that they were feathering the nests of the very people who were to blame for the crisis and not helping ordinary people enough. Trump exploited that sentiment in 2016, and it got him over the line.
Sort of correct, but incomplete. The Obama administration enacted the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), which provided economic stimulus to the flagging economy. It's major problems were that it was a) too small and b) channeled some of its relief in the form of tax cuts, which are less effective stimulus than direct government spending on things like infrastructure. Both a) and b) were attempts to court Republican support, which naturally failed abysmally. The act got zero Republican votes in the House and three in the Senate. When Republicans gained control of the House of Representatives in 2011 funding for the ARRA was severely curtailed. Because of the ARRA the U.S. economy recovered much more quickly than most European economies. Because it was underfunded and cut short the U.S. economy didn't recover as well as it potentially could have.
As far as I can tell, Democrats who engage in racism, as with sexism and homophobia, are railed upon by their own side... Racism is unacceptable in the Democratic Party.
Right up until you suggest integrating their schools. Then all of a sudden it's "parental choice" this and "neighborhood schools" that. Some of the most segregated school systems in the country are Boston, New York City, Chicago and San Francisco, which are all heavily Democratic.
I believe that white liberals want to not be racist, but in general our behavior doesn't match our beliefs. There's still a very strong instinct towards segregated neighborhoods and schools and an assumption that minorities and crime are related.
So that's the future as I see it under a Biden administration that can tackle healthcare.
Unlikely I'd have thought given the power of the lobbies and who pays for campaigns - you may end up with a judge that's only slightly to the right of Merrick Garland though.
Erik Prince, the security contractor with close ties to the Trump administration, has in recent years helped recruit former American and British spies for secretive intelligence-gathering operations that included infiltrating Democratic congressional campaigns, labor organizations and other groups considered hostile to the Trump agenda, according to interviews and documents.
They don't brawl in the streets and beat up the opposition, they spy, do cyber things etc. It doesn't sound good at all.
This is probably expectable. A former mercenary, who owned in infamous private army company called Blackwater is doing things for trump. Apparently his sister is a trump collaborator named Betsy DeVos.
A slight twist to this is that DeVos has been against public schools for most of her life, and Prince's company is now in court for spying on a teaching union.
Disgraced paramilitary leader aligned with regime party pays spies to infiltrate and suppress domestic political opposition on behalf of the head of state
The Really Important Fact About Erik Prince That Everyone’s Coverage Keeps Missing: His Frontier Services Group is Funded By the People’s Republic of China
Who his paymasters are and how they exert control over their assets is the really important piece of information that everyone reporting on Prince’s connection to Project Veritas and commenting on the reporting is missing.
Latest indications are Trump is not interested in pardoning Weinstein since he supported Clinton and vowed to do everything he could to stop Trump. Not going to happen.
Weinstein was convicted in a state court so Trump can't pardon him for that (unless made New York governor).
Latest indications are Trump is not interested in pardoning Weinstein since he supported Clinton and vowed to do everything he could to stop Trump. Not going to happen.
Weinstein was convicted in a state court so Trump can't pardon him for that (unless made New York governor).
That too. I should have remembered that.
I can only hope the NY State Court can take on the Trump Enterprise in the same way,
As a reporter, in general I’m not supposed to say something like this, but: The president’s statements to the press were terrifying. That press availability was a repudiation of good science and good crisis management from inside one of the world’s most respected scientific institutions. It was full of Dear Leader-ish compliments, non-sequitorial defenses of unrelated matters, attacks on an American governor, and — most importantly — misinformation about the virus and the US response. That’s particularly painful coming from inside the CDC, a longtime powerhouse in global public health now reduced to being a backdrop for grubby politics. During a public health crisis, clear and true information from leaders is the only way to avoid dangerous panic. Yet here we are.
There's lots of stuff there about mendacity and openly saying that he wants to impede testing to keep American infection numbers low, but the overall theme is that he (and, by extension, his administration*) keep treating the COVID-19 epidemic like a public relations problem rather than a disease outbreak.
Barnabas62Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
I sat up late and watched his broadcast. He was bad. Clearly reading (badly and hurriedly) from a teleprompter. Not clear to me from the delivery whether his heart was in it or even that he understood it. I'd say probably not. And to my mind a good deal of policy incoherence, particularly in the announced Europe travel ban (partially excluding the UK - why?).
Prediction. The markets will continue to tank. It's not just that he's out of his depth. The White House is out of its collective depth.
It is like trying to close the barn door after the horses are already out. It may be a good sound bite (in his mind), but it will not stop what is already happening. Too bad for transatlantic carriers, though when I flew over to Europe, we went through Canada.
Based on his not wanting cruise ship passengers to disembark here because the number of infected Americans would go up...he may well figure that Americans who go to Asia will wind up on another country's balance sheet.
I heard some of his Wed. corona virus speech on the radio. He sounded in very bad shape, almost like someone was threatening him or holding a gun on him.
The words seemed to take the situation more seriously--which doesn't mean that T takes it more seriously, or even has a clue about it.
He has a germ phobia, so (on some level) he's probably terrified.
Barnabas62Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
That announcement is the scariest one I've heard so far in all this. I've always said the real test for Trump would be when a real crisis came along.
It's worse. He's got rid of all the adults and brave no-sayers amongst his senior advisers and in the process has dangerously reduced competence levels in the White House. He's clearly not up to handling a major crisis and doesn't have the team he needs.
A CNN commentator suggested that his poor presentation of the contents of the talk was not because he was nervous but because he was totally pissed off with the situation. Never mind others, the virus effects, particularly the tanking of the market, put him on the back foot for the election.
The appeal for national unity rang very hollow, coming from the lips of a man whose words and actions have been so divisive. The crisis has found him out and will continue to do so. There are no comfortable alternative facts here. No escape from the hard reality. No scope for bombastic rallies and tweets. It's comeuppance time.
I think that's inevitable in the long run anyway, and there will be a lot of steps leading to it, but yes, this could be an important one.
Barnabas62Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
I suppose that China is not completely out of the woods. I'm not sure how persistent this new virus is, what its capacity to evolve and reinfect is.
Of course Trump has done real damage to the US position as world leader but that may be a temporary effect. But one thing is true for sure. The global economy desperately needs China to get back on its feet. That in itself is a sign of how important it has become.
He read the speech like a five year old who had forgotten his glasses. He sounded ill and angry.
Barnabas62Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
I'll be watching the NYSE. But if Far East and European markets are anything to go by, Trump's speech may even have accelerated the market tanking. The FTSE dropped over 6% in the first half hour of trading. European markets (an hour ahead) are down 7%.
Trump doesn't have an earthly clue (as Ruth observed elsewhere). A bemused French commentator on BBC Radio 4 today programme observed something similar.
If anything, I get the impression from the financiers with whom I work that Trump has accelerated the tanking of the markets. They are very affrighted by his isolationism.
On a separate topic, Trump's fiscal policies have led to a 15% increase in the budget deficit over the first five months of the current fiscal year. It is behind a pay wall (sorry!), but the Wall Street Journal article is here. The important thing to note is that this increase in the budget deficit is occurring BEFORE any COVID-19 remediation measures are factored in. It likely will just balloon from here.
It is the predictable result of Trump's "spend but don't tax" policy and, IMHO, fiscally irresponsible. But it will be ignored because of the COVID-19 crisis, and if it gets mentioned later, Trump's defenders will undoubtedly blame the virus for the deficit--even though right now we see that the virus has nothing to do with his fiscal irresponsibility.
I'll be watching the NYSE. But if Far East and European markets are anything to go by, Trump's speech may even have accelerated the market tanking. The FTSE dropped over 6% in the first half hour of trading. European markets (an hour ahead) are down 7%.
Is it just me, or do stocks fall every time Trump holds a news conference on the coronavirus? It's as if investors need constant reminding of his cluelessness.
Seems like more an indictment of the investor class than Trump.
Comments
Terry Nichols is an option and has a certain appeal to some of the "very fine people" who support Trump. Unfortunately he was also sentenced to life without the possibility of parole by a state court, which means he'd still be in prison if his federal conviction is vacated.
Seems like it.
Again, neither said nor meant. Not turning a blind eye to anything. I'm saying it's a serious and chronic illness; there's no current treatment that makes much difference; and the gov't still needs to function at least well enough to pay the bills, help people out, and manage at least a semblance of law and order.
Barring a "Damascus Road experience" (adjusted for personal beliefs) for everyone at every level of gov't in the country; for all the people contributing money, power, and connections; and for everyone aspiring to get involved...
AND barring miraculous/magical power to cause a lasting cure...
we're stuck with the situation we've got for a long, long time.
Yes, anti-corruption standards are important. Absolutely. But enforcing them rarely seems to do much good. We've got a Hydra situation (Britannica). And it's much worse than the original.
Maybe mere mortals, working together, can do the job this time. But it will take coordinated effort over generations (most likely).
Unless you've got a quick fix that will work? An anti-corruption vaccine that can build up enough herd immunity that most people just aren't interested anymore?
(Not being flip. Just somewhat tired and frustrated.)
Meanwhile, we *can* try to manage the chronic illness.
I.e., be pragmatic.
It's a second thing that the king can successfully corrupt legislstive assemblies.
It's a third thing for a king to corrupt the administration of justice and courts.
At some point the king needs to be put off his throne when the corruption is just too much. Someone usually dies to make that happen. Or more die to prevent it because they are owned by their part of the corruption.
a) T is more than corrupt--he's massively broken;
b) the legislative assemblies were already corrupt, to various degrees, ISTM;
c) the courts and administration of justice were already corrupt, to various degrees, ISTM.
Actually, many American Shipmates (myself, incl.) and other Americans want to avoid the solution scenario you mentioned--hence pushing and praying for T to be legal and non-violently removed from office.
So, presuming such a situation could ever happen in our neighbor to the north, what would *you* do, please?
One Govt Minister rang up the head of Hello World travel and booked a private holiday. He says he intended to pay for it, but he forgot about it, and the CEO "forgot" to bill him. When it became public, he paid for the travel straight away and said sorry. I thought he should have resigned his ministry, and spent some time on the back bench before being promoted again. He's a competent politician. He should be in Cabinet if we MUST have a conservative Govt.
I could go through half a dozen scandals, ranging from this low level stuff, to using Govt money for political advantage, to actual ridgie didge bribery of local Govt officials to get favorable planning decisions or contracts. People have gone to jail for that stuff at a local Govt and State level. There was even a Federal Minister for Immigration about 20 years ago who was jailed for using his position to obtain sexual favors from an applicant for a visa (can't remember the specifics).
So yes, it goes on, because that's us. And because that's us, it has to be policed hard and penalised when the opportunity comes to penalize it. Because the opportunity to catch corrupt pollies with their hand in the proverbial till and have enough evidence to make it stick is very rare. So when it happens, you have to make an example.
So, in summary:
1. Evaluate the seriousness of the behavior. What level of corruption is it? Is a political remedy, such as the one I outlined above in the Hello World scandal, sufficient? Can you get a political remedy? Will the politician who has committed the corrupt act be protected by his or her allies?
2. Because it is so difficult and so rare to be able to catch a politician in an act of serious corruption and for their allies to be unable to protect them, you must crucify them. They must suffer a very serious penalty for what they did. Deterrence is the aim here.
Corruption is Democracy's cancer. Its secondaries are disillusionment with the system and a loss of faith in Democracy by the general public. Democracy's death from this cancer is authoritarianism.
No mercy.
I'm not sure about this. I wonder what others think. I'm going to copy this message over to the Trump Presidency Discussion Thread as I think a detailed discussion is out of place here.
@chrisstiles
Trump's emergence is in part about the effects of the 2008 financial crisis and the austerity response, but I'm not sure how much austerity actually happened in a United States where the social safety net has always been fragile, if there at all. As I understand things, Obama pumped money into the economy, first to save huge businesses going under and then to stimulate growth. It worked, in that it avoided a worse financial crisis and began a substantial recovery that has lasted right up to now. BUT, it laid Democrats open to the charge that they were feathering the nests of the very people who were to blame for the crisis and not helping ordinary people enough. Trump exploited that sentiment in 2016, and it got him over the line.
But that's not the only thing Trump exploited. He exploited the never-very-far-from-the-surface racism at the heart of the American experience (not exclusively by any stretch I hasten to add). He ran with that fast and hard. It started out with his leadership of the Birther movement, continued with his hateful pillorying of immigrants, especially "Mexicans", and is still going with his White Supremacist friendly administration (hello Steven Miller) and the institutional ratfucking practiced in an America which even yesterday couldn't get everyone to the polls who wanted to vote. I'm thinking now of people who had to line up PAST MIDNIGHT to vote. I am not sure that I could do that, and I am a fanatic.
I'm really not sure what Chris means when he says:
As far as I can tell, Democrats who engage in racism, as with sexism and homophobia, are railed upon by their own side. Think of the blackface scandals last year. Racism is unacceptable in the Democratic Party. You might not lose your job. Governor Northam managed to hang on. But you will be wounded. The split in the Democratic Party, as far as I can tell, is over economics and the details of how to construct a social safety net which measures up to world standards. And really, its a dispute about electability more than it is a dispute about policy. Republicans are the ones exploiting American racism, not Democrats.
If Biden is the candidate, and if he wins and has control of congress (big ifs, I know), you will see him tackle health care in America by framing it as undoing Trump's damage to the ACA and building on the achievements of the Obama Administration. If he can do it, and get it right, America will be an immesurably better place for middle and working class people everywhere. Like in Australia, where Medicare began in the mid-1970's and was bedded down in 1984, Health care will become a huge plus for the Democrats. Americans will love it, like we do. It won't entrench the Democrats as the party of Govt, just like it didn't for the ALP here, but it will become a shibboleth. Our conservatives know that if they touch our health coverage, they will lose. So while they tinker undercover, their tinkering is limited.
So that's the future as I see it under a Biden administration that can tackle healthcare. I see it as a good working basis to go for almost two decades of Democratic governance in Washington.
Remember Donald was taken aback with how we value it
Then again, you find the nuts under the hubs.
As far as I can tell, Democrats who engage in racism, as with sexism and homophobia, are railed upon by their own side. Think of the blackface scandals last year. Racism is unacceptable in the Democratic Party.
Yes, I think it's safe to say that, at this point in history(but possibly not as recently as twenty years ago), almost anyone harbouring dixiecrat views on race(including the kind of statements often prefaced with "I'm not racist, but...") has gone over to the Republicans. With a similar polarization on other social issues(maybe abortion being an exception, but still, no Democratic presidential contender is gonna be anti-choice anymore).
I agree the main intra-party cleavage among Democrats is over economics. Even centrists who complain about "Bernie Bros" don't really think that Sanders is advocating anti-feminist policies, just that his followers are beholden to a certain macho style.
Sort of correct, but incomplete. The Obama administration enacted the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), which provided economic stimulus to the flagging economy. It's major problems were that it was a) too small and b) channeled some of its relief in the form of tax cuts, which are less effective stimulus than direct government spending on things like infrastructure. Both a) and b) were attempts to court Republican support, which naturally failed abysmally. The act got zero Republican votes in the House and three in the Senate. When Republicans gained control of the House of Representatives in 2011 funding for the ARRA was severely curtailed. Because of the ARRA the U.S. economy recovered much more quickly than most European economies. Because it was underfunded and cut short the U.S. economy didn't recover as well as it potentially could have.
Right up until you suggest integrating their schools. Then all of a sudden it's "parental choice" this and "neighborhood schools" that. Some of the most segregated school systems in the country are Boston, New York City, Chicago and San Francisco, which are all heavily Democratic.
I believe that white liberals want to not be racist, but in general our behavior doesn't match our beliefs. There's still a very strong instinct towards segregated neighborhoods and schools and an assumption that minorities and crime are related.
Corrected quotation attribution. BroJames Purgatory Host
This kind of thing.
Unlikely I'd have thought given the power of the lobbies and who pays for campaigns - you may end up with a judge that's only slightly to the right of Merrick Garland though.
They don't brawl in the streets and beat up the opposition, they spy, do cyber things etc. It doesn't sound good at all.
A slight twist to this is that DeVos has been against public schools for most of her life, and Prince's company is now in court for spying on a teaching union.
Or as one tweet put it:
That's how it would be described if it happened anywhere other than the U.S. And then there's the important context that's missing from most media accounts.
Weinstein was convicted in a state court so Trump can't pardon him for that (unless made New York governor).
That too. I should have remembered that.
I can only hope the NY State Court can take on the Trump Enterprise in the same way,
I'm pretty sure here are many people working on that.
There's lots of stuff there about mendacity and openly saying that he wants to impede testing to keep American infection numbers low, but the overall theme is that he (and, by extension, his administration*) keep treating the COVID-19 epidemic like a public relations problem rather than a disease outbreak.
For those who'd like to see for themselves, Aaron Rupar twitter-threads most of Trump's appearances, complete with videos so you don't have to take Rupar's word for what he says.
Prediction. The markets will continue to tank. It's not just that he's out of his depth. The White House is out of its collective depth.
Because Trump owns golf courses in the U.K. and wants Americans to be able to go there.
Based on his not wanting cruise ship passengers to disembark here because the number of infected Americans would go up...he may well figure that Americans who go to Asia will wind up on another country's balance sheet.
The words seemed to take the situation more seriously--which doesn't mean that T takes it more seriously, or even has a clue about it.
He has a germ phobia, so (on some level) he's probably terrified.
A CNN commentator suggested that his poor presentation of the contents of the talk was not because he was nervous but because he was totally pissed off with the situation. Never mind others, the virus effects, particularly the tanking of the market, put him on the back foot for the election.
The appeal for national unity rang very hollow, coming from the lips of a man whose words and actions have been so divisive. The crisis has found him out and will continue to do so. There are no comfortable alternative facts here. No escape from the hard reality. No scope for bombastic rallies and tweets. It's comeuppance time.
Of course Trump has done real damage to the US position as world leader but that may be a temporary effect. But one thing is true for sure. The global economy desperately needs China to get back on its feet. That in itself is a sign of how important it has become.
Trump doesn't have an earthly clue (as Ruth observed elsewhere). A bemused French commentator on BBC Radio 4 today programme observed something similar.
It is the predictable result of Trump's "spend but don't tax" policy and, IMHO, fiscally irresponsible. But it will be ignored because of the COVID-19 crisis, and if it gets mentioned later, Trump's defenders will undoubtedly blame the virus for the deficit--even though right now we see that the virus has nothing to do with his fiscal irresponsibility.
Paul Krugman observed something similar recently
Seems like more an indictment of the investor class than Trump.